http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD, JABALPUR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HARSH WOOD PRODUCTS & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 522        JT 1996 (5)   434  1996 SCALE  (4)485

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and  order dated  March  12,  1993  passed  by  the Division Bench  of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in  M.P. No.1484/91.  The admitted position is that on August  21,   1991,  the  appellants’  staff  inspected  the electrical installation  of the respondents connected by the appellant-Board. In  the proceedings recorded after the said inspection, the facts noted are as under:      "During the  course of  inspection,      Shri  Dilip   was  present  as  the      representative of  M/s. Harsh  Wood      Products, Banmore,  and  found  the      following           irregularities.      Connection No.1156 [2556] -      1- No  seal found on Meter terminal      cover.      2- Body seals of the meter, bearing      No.490812 [Right  side]  and  01443      [Left Side] found tematampered.      3- The  seals on Meter Box, bearing      No.38556/SE    Morena,    C-10/MPEB      Gwalior, found OK.      Connection No.1158 [2824]      1]  No   seal  found   with   Meter      terminal cover.      2]  Meter   Body   seals,   bearing      No.49817  [Right   Side]  &  013361      [Left  Side]   found   broken   and      Tampered.      3]  Seal   on  meter   box  bearing      No.33434/SE    Morena     C-10/MPEB      Gwalior found OK.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

         In both the above connections,      the  difference   was  noticed,  in      serial No.  and the location of the      seals provided  on Meter  Body. The      serial No.  and the location of the      meter body  seals, as  found in the      inspection  carried  out  on  dated      16.3.91, are found different in the      checking  carried   out  on   dated      22.8.91. The  difference noticed in      serial No.  & location  in checking      is as hereunder:-               Connection       Connection                  No.2556         No.2824 16.3.91      Right Side 490817    013343 Seal fixed   Left Side  490812    013361 28.8.91 Report as    Right Side 490812    49817              Left Side  013343    013361 Meter No.          0530489        545768           This   panchnama    has   been      prepared  in  view  of  Meter  Body      seals  found   Tempered  and  Meter      terminal seals  found missing so as      to interfere and control the energy      consumption as per his own desire.           Maintaining  "Status  Quo"  of      the tempered and broken body seals,      of  Meter   of   Both   the   above      connection, New  Seals are fixed on      the  meter   box  bearing  No.M1919      MPEB/MT on  Connection No.2556  and      NoM  1920   MPEB/MT  on  connection      No.2824. The  old seals provided on      the meter  box are  in custody with      the   Executive    Engineer   [O&M]      Morena.      Sd/-       Sd/-          Sd/-      22.8.91    22.8.91       22.8.91      EE [O&M]   S.E [Testing] A.E. [DIW]      Morena     Gwalior       Morena      Sd/-       Sd/-          Sd/-      22.8.91    22.8.91       22.8.91      A.E.132 KV A.E. [Testing]Dilip      S/s        Morena        [Represen-      Banmore                  tative of                              Consumer]".      In the  said proceedings, one Mr. Dilip had represented the respondent-Industry and he was also the signatory to the proceedings.  Thereafter,   notice   was   issued   to   the respondents on August 26, 1991 informing that the meter body seals were tempered and damaged with seal wire. The seals of the meter  terminal block  were found  missing  which  would indicate that  the function  of the  meter was  disturbed to reduce the  consumption of electrical energy. Therefore, the respondent-Industry was  directed to  pay the  difference of the assessed amount said to be in a sum of Rs.6,51,256.61 at the earliest.  It was  also pointed  out that  bill for  the further past years was being examined and the decision would be  taken  and  intimated  in  due  course.  In  furtherance thereof, the  respondent-Industry submitted  the explanation to the  show cause  on August  29, 1991 wherein he requested that on  humanitarian grounds,  viz ,  "the  supply  of  the installation will please be restored immediately and we give the undertaking  that if  any balance amount becomes due for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

payment on  account of  vigilance checking, the same will be deposited  immediately  on  providing  the  bills  for  such amount". The  reply was  also given  by Mr.  Dilip  who  had participated during inspection.      Upon these  facts, the  question emerges:  whether  the High Court  would be justified in interfering with the order directing them to pay the difference of the amount. The High Court in  the impugned judgment has held that the respondent has a  right of  hearing before  the authority subject it to payment of the amount which is alleged to be due towards the theft of electricity as required under Section 31 [e] of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Since that opportunity was not given,  it   violated  Articles   20  [1]   and  21  of  the Constitution   and,   therefore,   the   order   was   void. Accordingly, it  directed  the  appellant-Board  to  restore within 24  hours the  service connection No.2556/1156 of the Industry. It is also stated with respect to the claim of the Board against  electricity stolen  that it  would be open to the appellant  to raise  legal and  appropriate demand  in a legal  and   lawful  manner.  Accordingly,  the  demand  was quashed.      The question,  therefore, is:  whether the  view of the High Court  is sustainable  in law.  It would  be seen  that Section 49  read with Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948  gives power  to the  appellant-Board to determine and also  to revise tariff from time to time. Admittedly, in exercise of the power the tariff has been determined and the principles governing  the supply  of electricity  have  been enumerated. Clause  31 [e]  is relevant  in this  behalf. It provides as under:           "[e]  Where  any  consumer  is      detected in  the commission  of any      malpractice with  reference to  his      use of  electrical energy including      authorised     alternations      to      installations,         unauthorised      extension and  use  of  devices  to      commit theft  of electrical  energy      the Board may, without prejudice to      its   other   rights,   cause   the      consumer’s supply  to be  forthwith      disconnected.  The  supply  may  be      restored in  the discretion  of the      Division Engineer  of the  Board if      the consumer  forthwith compensates      the Board  and pays all dues as per      bill and  takes such  other actions      as  he   may  be  directed  by  the      Divisional Engineer of the Board to      take in this connection".      A reading thereof clearly indicates that the appellant- Board, malpractice with  reference to  his use of electrical energy including   authorised    alternations   to   installations, unauthorised extension and use of devices to commit theft of electrical energy,  may,  without  prejudice  to  its  other rights, disconnect  the supply  of electricity forthwith and may call  upon the consumer to make payment for compensation of the  unauthorised use  of electricity which is now stated to be  a theft  of electricity. It is not in dispute that an FIR had  already been lodged for theft of electrical energy. It is  seen that  the proceedings  have been  drawn  in  the presence of  the representative  of the  respondent-Industry and the  meters were  found to  have been  tempered with. In furtherance thereof,  a prima  facie conclusion of pilferage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

has been  reached that  the meters  were tempered  with  and respondents were  called upon  to pay  the difference of the rate for  electricity said  to have been consumed during the stated period  of the  detection. It  would appear  that the said assessment  was based upon the previous consumption. It is seen that since the proceedings are pending, it would not be desirable to record any finding in this behalf.      The learned  counsel for  the respondent  placed strong reliance on  Section 24  of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which contemplates  seven days’ notice before disconnection. Section  24  does  not  apply  to  demand  on  detection  of pilferage. It  would apply  to a case of regular supply made and prior  demand for  payment of electricity charges with a notice of  seven days  to be  made and  for failure  to  pay within the  given time,  after expiry  of  seven  days,  the appellant as  a licensee  would get  the right to disconnect the supply  of electrical energy. It would thus be seen that disconnection will  be in  the course  of regular  supply of electricity for  non-payment of  the usual  bills but not to any case demand after detection of pilferage.      The only  question is: whether the consumer is entitled to hearing  before disconnection?  In view of the conditions to  which   the  respondents  had  agreed  at  the  time  of installation and  also the prima facie conclusion reached by the authorities,  it  was  not  necessary  to  give  further hearing  to   the  respondents.  The  action  taken  by  the appellant is  not violative  of Articles  20 [1],  14 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.